By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Law enforcement video recording of witnesses and suspects has a long history of controversy and judicial scrutiny. Not only can this be an issue in the field but also within the courtroom.
A recent interview of a witness brings these issues to light. This is especially noteworthy in jury trials and for accuracy in police reports forwarded to prosecutors.
Video below the fold…
Please watch this video witness statement and click below your choice as to how this might affect the case. Comments are most welcome.
By Darren Smith
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Here is a link to the upcoming Harvard Law Review Article (The (Non)Finality of Supreme Court Opinions (128 Harv.L.Rev.____) … forthcoming 2014).
You would think that tampering with evidence, perhaps editing the video to render a different effect, would be no worse than tampering with legal opinions of courts after the fact (changing the text years later).
That is evidently not the case (Supreme Court Uses Secretive Process To Revise Rulings Years After Issuing, quoting a Harvard Law Professor’s Report).
RE: frankmascagniiii,, May 24, 2014 at 4:51 pm
.
.
.
There are some instances when recording will still not be allowed, such as when the interviewee refuses to be recorded or when doing so would threaten public safety or national security.
.
.
.
***** *****
Given my bioengineering/biosemiotics based observation that the adversarial system of law and jurisprudence is inherently, intrinsically, historically, and inextricably, deceptive by its foundational principles, surely anything that is in any way actually and tangibly truthful would, could and will, threaten national security.
Oh, yes, for the sake of accuracy, I have read quickly through most of the Robert Hurley/Abe Smith translation of Pierre Clastres, Society Against the State, Zone Books, copyright 1987 Urzone, Inc., and am in the process of re-reading it.
Is public safety antithetical to national security as national security is antithetical to public safety?
Frank, I read this the other day. The Feds always come kicking and screaming into compliance w/ everyone else. I would like to see them record witness statements as well, but that ain’t goin’ to happen.
Interesting timely article:
FBI, in historic policy change, to record interrogations
Julia Edwards Reuters
1:40 p.m. CDT, May 22, 2014
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The FBI and several other U.S. federal law enforcement agencies will reverse a policy that has long prohibited the recording of interrogations of people held in custody, a Justice Department memo sent last week said.
The new policy, effective July 11, creates a presumption that agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will record video statements made by people who are in their custody prior to appearing in court.
Attorney General Eric Holder said in a video address on Thursday that the policy change was the result of a thorough review that concluded recordings would ensure an “objective account of key investigations and interactions with people who are held in federal custody.”
Criminal defense lawyers have long advocated that the over 100-year-old ban on recordings be overturned in the interest of transparency.
“Recording interrogations protects the accused against police misconduct, protects law enforcement against false allegations, and protects public safety by ensuring a verbatim record of the interrogation process and any statements,” said Jerry Cox, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, in a statement on Wednesday.
There are some instances when recording will still not be allowed, such as when the interviewee refuses to be recorded or when doing so would threaten public safety or national security.
Hundreds of state and local jurisdictions across the United States currently record interrogations, according to data from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
(Reporting by Julia Edwards; Editing by G Crosse and Steve Orlofsky)
RE: Dredd, May 24, 2014 at 9:57 am
“How would a jury trial be affected by this witness’ video statement?” – Question in vote box
The practitioners who do jury trials know that juries are as different as wild flowers, so properly “constructing the jury” during the selection process is quite important (The Jury Expert).
This illustrates the importance of cultural impact on individuals within a culture (Comparing a Meme Complex to a Cultural Amygdala).
***** *****
Do I accurately understand this to signify that a properly constructed jury is made of people whose prior prejudices, and not the evidence manifestly presented at trial in court, establish the way whereby a verdict is properly made?
A properly constructed jury is always rigged by prejudices?
Oops?
On May 24, 2014 6:34 AM, “JONATHAN TURLEY” wrote: > > Darren Smith posted: “By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor Law enforcement video recording of witnesses and suspects has a long history of controversy and judicial scrutiny. Not only can this be an issue in the field but also within the courtroom. A recent interview of a” >
Hilarious
Obviously these are actors and their job is to exaggerate the fantasy story and make the paying audience laugh. So may some on the Jury – and maybe some will suspect the presenting Lawyer regards them as stupid and wanting to be entertained?
Give the guy a dog biscuit and move along! 🙂
I thought witnesses had to give their testimony is court. Would this be used for impeachment purposes? The guy does a great wild dog impression, I will say that. I was convinced. He is clearly not insane because he was calm before and after his wild dog impression.
Darren – where is this video from. The guy sounds like he is from another country.
“How would a jury trial be affected by this witness’ video statement?” – Question in vote box
The practitioners who do jury trials know that juries are as different as wild flowers, so properly “constructing the jury” during the selection process is quite important (The Jury Expert).
This illustrates the importance of cultural impact on individuals within a culture (Comparing a Meme Complex to a Cultural Amygdala).
I think he scared his wife.
I just love it, impeachment.
Read him, his Miranda rights, polygraph test it and lawyer up before saying anything.
Someone help with order of operation please? I know the answer to my question.
Testimony is a type of evidence. All evidence is important.
and wipe that spit off the microphone
i guess it depends on what the trial is for. if it is related to something the dogs are said to have done, the judge might want to tell him to just answer the question, not act it out.
and spit off the microphone.
I swear, the rendition of the attack sounded like it was dubbed over by dobermans.
Unusual testimony